Equitable remedies are not always a convenient alternative to contractual protection. Malcolm Dowden
The House of Lords ruling in Yeoman's Row v Cobbe [2008] UKHL 55 applies the brakes to a recent trend for disappointed parties to seek equitable remedies when they have no legally enforceable contract to acquire land. As Lord Walker pointed out, equitable estoppel: “…is not a sort of joker or wild card to be used whenever the court disapproves of the conduct of a litigant who seems to have the law on his side. Flexible though it is, the doctrine must be formulated and applied in a disciplined and principled way”.
Cobbe was aware that the formal requirements of s 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 had not been met so there could be no enforceable contract. As soon as planning permission was obtained, the property owner attempted to increase the up-front payment from £12m to £20m and to reduce Cobbe's share of development profits. When negotiations broke down, Cobbe was left with no payment for
-sophie-hughes-(r).tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=7a9dca4b_1)
